Also - Re: Disagree - Re: [wg-review] Outreach 6

[Derek Conant - DNSGA <dconant@dnsga.org>]

I should also point out that the "voluntary participation" (as you put it) was accomplished
here because I lobbied and pushed for such accomplishment.  In my opinion, the GA and its
WGs need trust, understanding and better communication to accomplish anything significant
here.  That's all.

Derek Conant


Derek Conant - DNSGA wrote:

> I must respectfully disagree with your point of view and opinion.
>
> My belief and understanding of due process is that you cannot expect the RTF or anyone
> to take anything this WG does seriously without WG representatives willing to be
> identified and counted. This is necessary in the interim of the development of any
> successful organization.
>
> Try convincing my board to go a certain direction without representation or a majority
> to stand behind their proposal. Without representation and accountability in due
> process, a board is free to decide whatever it chooses using ambiguity in the proposal
> as its excuse.
>
> I believe that the RTF is going to do what it wants regardless of any GA or WG input at
> this point.  I believe that this WG is significantly unorganized, wasting time and
> energy, and that the RTF will ignore GA and WG recommendations that do not serve RTF
> preconceived agenda.  If the GA and its WGs were better organized It would be difficult
> for the RTF to ignore GA and WG proposals.
>
> Due process is the process we are working with here whether you want to admit it or
> not.  Polling has no teeth in due process and that's reality.  Proposals with
> representatives willing to be be identified and counted have significantly more weight
> in due process and is difficult for opposition to ignore.  That is what is so
> interesting about the due process animal if you can understand what I am saying here.
>
> So, I work within the real world here and I have proposed how you get the job done in
> this due process arena.  I believe I have made my point, however, I have more productive
> things to do with my time.  I am not going to disrupt this WG with further comments
> regarding the subject matter.
>
> I hope that I have done more good here through my comments than anything else.
>
> Derek Conant
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Generally this type of comment should pass without notice but because it is  so
> > erroneous it should not. Also by analysis it can lead to progress elsewhere.
> > Compulsory vs. Voluntary, dictate vs. Empowerment, Information vs. Slander, Critical
> > vs. Whining, Debate vs. fight.
> >
> > What Derek demanded was compulsory, what he was offered and rejected is what he got,
> > Voluntary. As I believe Dassa pointed out yesterday, there is a big difference with
> > a very different result, empowerment not requirement.
> >
> > The arguments over government versus corporation are illustrative of the point that
> > we cannot dictate but must negotiate. We cannot rule by vote accomplished fiat but
> > must find Danny's son's tribal consensus based upon inticed voluntary contribution,
> > attribution and acquiescence.
> >
> > Who owns ICANN is not important to answer but only important to point out that it
> > does not matter.  Going to court to force an issue hasn't been done because it is
> > recognized that forcing anything here is counterproductive, at least at this point.
> >
> > The single most important goal should be to obtain better more voluntary
> > participation. Somehow this was accomplished with this vote, but I think we can find
> > better paths to and from the Pow Wow.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Derek Conant - DNSGA wrote:
> >
> > > I acknowledge the votes in opposition to my motion request.
> > >
> > > Thank you for identifying yourselves for the vote though and for standing behind
> > > your votes.  That was all I was asking for.
> > >
> > > Derek Conant
> > >
> > > Greg Burton wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 01:06 PM 2/1/01, Greg Burton wrote:
> > > > >>Does anyone in this WG agree that this WG should quickly address and fix its
> > > > >>voting process?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Yes or No?
> > > >
> > > > Voting has closed. Here are the results:
> > > >
> > > > Motion fails by a margin of 16 opposed, 1 in favor. Thank you all for your
> > > > participation. As per the announcement of this vote,  the topic should now
> > > > be dropped as there is clearly no support for Mr Conant's position.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Greg - working co-chair
> > > >
> > > > For:
> > > > Derek Conant
> > > >
> > > > Opposed:
> > > > bukko
> > > > Greg Burton
> > > > Joanna Lane
> > > > Eric Dierker
> > > > Larry Molner
> > > > Joe Gluza
> > > > Roeland Meyer
> > > > Sotiris Sotiropoulis
> > > > Dave Guers
> > > > Rob Juneau
> > > > Luka Muscara
> > > > Joop Teernstra
> > > > Karl Auerbach
> > > > Pierre Dandjinou
> > > > Eric Jonvel
> > > > Simon Kapenda
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html